Open challenge regarding the supernatural

[Angrboda]

Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means. The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means. How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now. In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?

[Whateverist]

The difference is explained by ones eagerness to throw in the towel. Of course most advocates of the supernatural category start off eager to find signs of their favorite supernatural being.

[Faith No More]

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.  The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means.  How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now.  In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?

That's precisely why I think the term is entirely useless and is really just used to justify beliefs.  To prove that something is supernatural as opposed to unknown, one would have to identify the mechanisms behind that something.  Once you do that, does it not then become natural?

[Angrboda]

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.  The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means.  How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now.  In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?

That's precisely why I think the term is entirely useless and is really just used to justify beliefs.  To prove that something is supernatural as opposed to unknown, one would have to identify the mechanisms behind that something.  Once you do that, does it not then become natural?

But then we would have to conclude that the set of things to which the word supernatural applies is the empty set. Is this not the same as saying there is no such thing as the supernatural? First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means. So if we conclude on the basis of your hypothetical that there are no supernatural events or forces, are we not begging the question prior to examining the phenomenon? I feel supernatural as a term has a sense, even if that sense is not satisfied by any real world object. So how do we bridge the gap between the sense of the word, and the fact that we have not examined all things to which the name supernatural might apply?

[Pyrrho]

Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.  The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means.  How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now.  In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?

That isn't how robvalue defined "supernatural" in the opening post.  However, even going with your proposal, the fact that we do explain, by natural means, much of what is going on with mind is strongly suggestive that mind can be explained by natural means.  Perhaps we will reach a limit at some point in the future, but at the moment, it is premature to suppose that it cannot, in principle, all be explained.

Also, from your perspective, how is my breakfast this morning distinguishable from a supernatural event?  You cannot explain what I had for breakfast.  Or even if I had breakfast this morning.

---

...  First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means.  ....

And what, precisely, would that definite sense be?

As for whether it applies to anything or not, some things can be known to not exist from their very description.  For example, there are no round squares.  "Supernatural," I suspect, is different in that it is not so much self-contradictory, but that it is probably simply an incoherent pseudo-concept.  But we can decide that after you tell us about the "definite semantic sense" of the term.

[downbeatplumb]

The term supernatural is just a pious way of saying, "I don't know what the fuck is going on here!" Literally everything is a miracle in the empty skulls of feverish believers---not simply virgin births---but all births!

Indeed its like UFOs, they are unidentified, not aliens

[Angrboda]

...  First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means.  ....

And what, precisely, would that definite sense be?

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.

As for whether it applies to anything or not, some things can be known to not exist from their very description.  For example, there are no round squares.  "Supernatural," I suspect, is different in that it is not so much self-contradictory, but that it is probably simply an incoherent pseudo-concept.  But we can decide that after you tell us about the "definite semantic sense" of the term.

It doesn't seem incoherent unless you beg the question by assuming that there is no such thing as a thing that can't be explained by natural means.

[Pyrrho]

And what, precisely, would that definite sense be?

Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means.  

As for whether it applies to anything or not, some things can be known to not exist from their very description.  For example, there are no round squares.  "Supernatural," I suspect, is different in that it is not so much self-contradictory, but that it is probably simply an incoherent pseudo-concept.  But we can decide that after you tell us about the "definite semantic sense" of the term.

It doesn't seem incoherent unless you beg the question by assuming that there is no such thing as a thing that can't be explained by natural means.

Can you explain what I had for breakfast?  Does that make the subject of my breakfast "supernatural?"

There are many details of history that cannot be explained with present knowledge.  We simply don't have any way of knowing what Socrates ate for breakfast on his 43rd birthday.  By your definition, that would make his breakfast on his 43rd birthday supernatural.  I don't think you really want to call his breakfast supernatural, do you?

[Whateverist]

\
It doesn't seem incoherent unless you beg the question by assuming that there is no such thing as a thing that can't be explained by natural means.

A failure to explain any phenomenon in natural terms can stem from:

1) the radical separateness of supernatural phenomena from all others;

2) the incompleteness of our explanatory structures;

3) the individual incompetence of observers to interpret what they experience.


The semantic sense of "supernatural" is conveyed comprehensibly enough in movies, but that doesn't get us any closer to any actual instances.

[bennyboy]

I am unconvinced that the mind is so special.  The way it is decided that a mind exists is through behavior.  The observation of behavior is how the mind is, to use your words, "tested, detected or measured" and such observation is "by natural means."  We make all sorts of determinations of the intelligence of minds (IQ tests, etc.), and there is nothing supernatural about how that is done.  We do the same sorts of things for determining how minds feel about various things.

These are all correlates, and there's a problem with science which can use only correlates-- none of them proves that any mind-- the mind I know which consists of the experience of qualia-- exists, or even adequately defines the term. The problem with this is that if you take what you already "know" and associate it with correlates, then you're begging the question. What if I already "know" that Zeus exists, and define measurements of Zeus in electrical terms. Then I can claim "There's nothing supernatural about the way in which I collect information about Zeus." I can show where Zeus' presence is strongest. I can do things to create or influence Zeus' presence. My Zeusology will produce results in the laboratory, which my startup company will package in interesting products to make me a trillion dollars.

But there's still no Zeus, or at least no way to prove such an entity exists.

The fact that it is "indirect" observation, in that one views the behavior rather than the mind itself, does not make the situation special.  We do the same with gravity.  We do not observe gravity as a thing in itself, but as it affects other things.*  That does not make gravity supernatural or unreal.

The difference is that there is no mechanism other than gravity for those effects. In fact, "gravity" isn't so much an assertion about the cause of the effect as a simple description OF the effect. But it is not necessary to do this with mind: we do not need to know what causes mind-like behavior because we know about the brain. So why talk about a voodoo entity like the mind at all? Why not just spell it like you think it: "Entity A receives input B and outputs behavior C." What's all this mind stuff even talking about?

Additionally, with examinations of damaged brains, we know that the mind is altered by altering the brain.  We can be pretty certain that the mind is a subset of the activities of the brain.  (One also can do a self-test, where one drinks enough alcohol to become drunk, and one can notice the subjective aspect of mind changing, while others can observe differences in our behavior.  The alcohol in the brain affects the activities of the brain.)  Granted, the details are not all worked out yet, but before modern astronomy, we did not know what the stars were and could not be sure about them.  That did not make them supernatural.  That just made the details unknown.  Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."

What is unknown is whether any other mind than my own exists at all. You keep talking about correlates, and haven't addressed the first question that really needs answering: Do any minds-- defined as agents capable of experiencing qualia-- exist? All you can is assume they do, and start working with the correlates. But you could equally assume God exists and start making up correlates for that, and studying God as though it were a thing. What's the difference?